[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Looting & vandalism isn't protest - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:45pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:34pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:29pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - islander - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:03pm
 
Things I'd LIKE to find at my house. - Antigone - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Sep 21, 2020 - 2:09pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 21, 2020 - 1:53pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2020 - 12:01pm
 
2020 Elections - KarmaKarma - Sep 21, 2020 - 10:52am
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - DianaLipka - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2020 - 8:05am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Sep 21, 2020 - 7:40am
 
Trump - cc_rider - Sep 21, 2020 - 7:31am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - paul84 - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:41am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Trolls at RP - Steely_D - Sep 20, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Facebook Tips - Ohmsen - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
WikiLeaks - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:12pm
 
American Justice - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 1:08pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:34pm
 
The American Dream - Red_Dragon - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:09pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:56am
 
The Obituary Page - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:35am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:15am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 7:29am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:46am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:14am
 
FLAC Streaming - gsbaronnier - Sep 20, 2020 - 3:24am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:26am
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Favorite Quotes - sirdroseph - Sep 19, 2020 - 9:46am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:59am
 
Canada - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 7:37pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 2:05pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Soliciting ideas to bring about a more humane world - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:57am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:43am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:39am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:02am
 
More Stuff Schlabby Doesn't Do - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:57am
 
Nina Simone... - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Brass Against? - jamesat43 - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:13am
 
Helpful emergency signs - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 7:38am
 
Breaking Bad - sirdroseph - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:55am
 
Economix - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 11:56pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:22pm
 
Fires - haresfur - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
Silence? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:28am
 
Regarding cats - sirdroseph - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - kcar - Sep 16, 2020 - 4:24am
 
Trade War - R_P - Sep 15, 2020 - 8:13pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 91, 92, 93 ... 103, 104, 105  Next
Post to this Topic
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 3:46pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Why do we let fools affect policy???
 

hc,
Seasonal salutations,
Not to start anything, but that question about fools is now being flipped on its head.
First class of BI101, you learn the scientific method, a method from which widely accepted good, solid fundamentals of a scientific endeavour, flow That first class lesson is done for many reasons, notably or perhaps chiefly, so that your work, whether in school or in a research facility, is from a methodology stand, unassailable. From the emails that caused a global maelstrom, it is obvious that not only was the scientific method not followed, but the singular greatest NO NO by anyone in the sciences, that of pushing/touting/publishing fradulent/doctored/manipulated/hidden data, became the MO for some in the climate game.
It is most telling that many zealots of the Religion of Climate attack the revelation of the emails. Again, attempting to fudge realities. The reality is not found in the sudden knowledge of such emails and the sinister plots and twists behind them, but that any group of scientists would conspire on such a scale with a topic of such prominence. And that conspiracy appears to be? Fraud/deceit/threats. Doesn't that make this group and perhaps others who might have engaged in the same absolutely forbidden methods they employed, fools?
And to your statement about fools: sounds like the approach favored by many on the matter of the global climate: the deal is sold, case dismissed. There will be and never should have been, free and unbridled dissent so say some zealots. And now we understandy why. A free discussion with a completely open sharing of data would have revealed what took place in the darkest days ever for science. The folks who have so smeared the world of good science, came up just short of suggesting snuffing out dissenters. Guess we can be thankful in this Holiday Season that they only desired their tongues be held and free speech be damned.
mk
Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 3:19pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Why do we let fools affect policy???
 
Cause everyone gets to have a say?


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 3:19pm

 Welly wrote:


 
Why do we let fools affect policy???

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 3:17pm


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 12:26pm

 miamizsun wrote:

I agree.

How can we get the corrupt immoral politicians uninvolved?

(unfortunately, when there's money, power, control, nebulous plans and unaccountability, bad guys show up)
 

A certain amount of corruption is inevitable- actually if you look at the global government corruption table generally speaking many of those high up the table are also very keen to move ahead with Copenhagen.  As to the plans for Copenhagen- it's not how I would do it either but it is better than nothing and it is a step on the road to changing the way we do things.

I should probably explain that I'm a pragmatic rather than an idealistic person.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 12:18pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:


The problem I have is that is it playing as a domestic political event in the USA.  It's not- this is a worldwide negotiation.  It's not just about your bloody government.

 
I agree.

How can we get the corrupt immoral politicians uninvolved?

(unfortunately, when there's money, power, control, nebulous plans and unaccountability, bad guys show up)

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 12:06pm

 miamizsun wrote:

Sounds like Pascal's wager to me {#Wink}

I have no problem being more efficient, cleaning up the environment, etc.

I do have a problem with corruption and theft in the name of doing so.

If you were in charge, how would you handle the situation?

Wouldn't it make sense to make changes with the least amount of harm? (philosophically speaking)

Cut waste and redirect resources in a intelligent manner in line with the objective?

Of course you/we would.

Now what do we see happening?

And why would we choose to put incompetent people in charge?

Are we crazy? {#Stupid}

 

The problem I have is that is it playing as a domestic political event in the USA.  It's not- this is a worldwide negotiation.  It's not just about your bloody government.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 11:53am

 Inamorato wrote:

As usual, Thomas Friedman is right on the mark in his most recent column.

Going Cheney on Climate

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Excerpt:

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

 (Full piece)



 
Sounds like Pascal's wager to me {#Wink}

I have no problem being more efficient, cleaning up the environment, etc.

I do have a problem with corruption and theft in the name of doing so.

If you were in charge, how would you handle the situation?

Wouldn't it make sense to make changes with the least amount of harm? (philosophically speaking)

Cut waste and redirect resources in a intelligent manner in line with the objective?

Of course you/we would.

Now what do we see happening?

And why would we choose to put incompetent people in charge?

Are we crazy? {#Stupid}
HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 11:42am

Good one  {#Lol}
Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 11:40am


Inamorato

Inamorato Avatar

Location: Twin Cities
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 10, 2009 - 4:27am

As usual, Thomas Friedman is right on the mark in his most recent column.

Going Cheney on Climate

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Excerpt:

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

 (Full piece)


Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 3:29pm

 Zep wrote:

This is politics, and a particularly unwieldy variety at that: international politics.  Reaching consensus policy is ugly. It's like making sausage: no one wants to see it being done.  But there it is, and stakeholders have to get in and scrap. Meanwhile, observers seem to be expecting roses and butterflies, with smiles all around, attendant to an organised process.

Forget about the rival texts.  Many of them are trial balloons. Forget the markups; quibbles can be sustantive - e.g., percent of GHGs - or trivial - e.g., comma or semi-colon.  It is still too early to call Copenhagen "shambles." There will be a lot of backroom deals made for support.  In a way, it's like a political nomination convention, with dozens of "candidates."  China is trying to broker a deal, and can likely deliver a huge bloc.  

 
Totally {#Yes}
Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 3:27pm

 Welly wrote:

Gwynne Dyer: Real world politics at Copenhagen

Copenhagen is turning into exactly the sort of shambles everybody feared it would be. The only official text still has almost 2,000 square brackets indicating points of disagreement, although there is less than two weeks to go. And now all the rival, unofficial texts are starting to emerge.

The first to be leaked was a Danish proposal that was backed by a number of other industrialised countries. It would simply scrap the Kyoto protocol, the only legally binding treaty in existence that makes countries reduce emissions, and ditch the measures it contains on financial assistance and technology transfer to poor countries. A new treaty would be constructed on a green-field site, with everything up for grabs.

 
This is politics, and a particularly unwieldy variety at that: international politics.  Reaching consensus policy is ugly. It's like making sausage: no one wants to see it being done.  But there it is, and stakeholders have to get in and scrap. Meanwhile, observers seem to be expecting roses and butterflies, with smiles all around, attendant to an organised process. All of these conventions go down like this, especially with so many delegates. 

Forget about the rival texts.  Many of them are trial balloons. Forget the markups; quibbles can be sustantive - e.g., percent of GHGs - or trivial - e.g., comma or semi-colon.  It is still too early to call Copenhagen "shambles." There will be a lot of backroom deals made for support.  In a way, it's like a political nomination convention, with dozens of "candidates."  China is trying to broker a deal, and can likely deliver a huge bloc.  


Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 3:02pm

Gwynne Dyer: Real world politics at Copenhagen

Copenhagen is turning into exactly the sort of shambles everybody feared it would be. The only official text still has almost 2,000 square brackets indicating points of disagreement, although there is less than two weeks to go. And now all the rival, unofficial texts are starting to emerge.

The first to be leaked was a Danish proposal that was backed by a number of other industrialised countries. It would simply scrap the Kyoto protocol, the only legally binding treaty in existence that makes countries reduce emissions, and ditch the measures it contains on financial assistance and technology transfer to poor countries. A new treaty would be constructed on a green-field site, with everything up for grabs.

The developing countries, needless to say, were furious—but in the next few days the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) will release its own proposed text. The least developed countries, the African bloc and the overall G77/China grouping are also expected to present their own texts, as are the small island states.

The last group, unsurprisingly, is threatening to veto any outcome that does not create a legally binding treaty, because it contains a number of small island countries that are likely to disappear entirely if the sea level rises even a metre. Yet it is very hard to believe that a binding treaty can be negotiated in the next seven or eight days—the conference ends on December 18—and in the end the island states will probably be bribed and bullied into accepting something less.

One hundred and ten heads of state will show up for the final couple of days, so SOMETHING will have to emerge that can be represented as a success. But it is likely to be merely a ringing statement of principles that steers around all the unresolved disputes, and then everyone will go home leaving the job half-done.

But cheer up. “Last chances” are rarely what they seem. The job of removing all the square brackets from the text will probably be resumed early next year, with the goal of bringing something closer to a final draft back to another Conference of the Parties as soon as possible. (This is COP 15, and COP 16 is already scheduled for Mexico City next summer).

So what does this process remind you of? If it were all happening within one country, and the blocs of states manoeuvring at Copenhagen were just local interest groups defending their turf, then you would recognise it instantly. It is the normal political process we are all familiar with, transposed to the global scale. And that is new.

It is hard to celebrate a process as clumsy, and occasionally as ugly, as the horse-trading and arm-twisting going on at Copenhagen, but that is how human politics works. We may all recognise that there is a global emergency, but every government still has its own interests to protect. Nevertheless, we have come a long way.

Seventy-five years ago there were only about fifty independent countries in the world, and more than half of the human race lived in somebody else’s empire. The one existing international organisation with any pretensions to global authority, the League of Nations, had collapsed, and we were entering the worst war in the history of mankind.

Forty years ago, there was a new, more ambitious global organisation, the United Nations, created mainly to prevent more such wars, and in particular a nuclear war. There were a hundred independent countries, many of them dictatorships, but they did represent the interests of their people better than the empires. The world was divided ideologically between East and West and economically between North and South, but the realisation was dawning that in some sense we were all in the same boat—and in the end we did avoid nuclear war.

Now there are 192 governments at the Copenhagen conference, most of them democratic, and they KNOW that we are all in the same boat. That’s why they are there. So now, for the first time in history, we have real global politics. It is as messy and incoherent as politics at any other level, but it is better than what we had before.

There are those on the right who think that climate change is a left-wing plot to impose a world government on everybody, but nothing of the sort is remotely likely. Those who built the first atomic bombs were not plotting to create the United Nations, nor did the scientists who first detected global warming have the Copenhagen conference as their ultimate goal.

We are all just dealing as best we can with threats that require a global response. We bring our old political habits with us, because there is no better model available. And yes, if we succeed, the world will be more politically integrated than ever before. Not because it is desirable—on that there are many possible views—but because it is necessary.

Published in the Georgia Straight


Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 2:01pm

 steeler wrote:
I did not know that U.S. and China emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Interesting to see how China tries to align itself with the developing countries.   As Edie said yesterday, a lot of this is about being good stewards of the planet.  On this issue, U.S. and China have an obligation to lead. 
 
China's alignment reflects both economics and global politics.  By being a developing country, their GHG emissions caps will not be as low as they would be in Europe, Japan, or the US, so they can continue to burn lots of coal.  Their stance permits them to wield a lot of power in the league of developing nations, and effectively act as leader and spokesperson for over half of the world's population.  This in turn gives them entry into locking up contracts with Nigeria, for example, for oil trade. 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 1:49pm

 Beaker wrote:


Say .. anyone paying attention to what Soros is up to of late ...? heh


 

I thought Rupert Murdoch was paying you to keep tabs on him, so I haven't been watching. Did he get away?

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 1:00pm

 Zep wrote:
Some more conference updates...

WSJ: All States Have Climate Role, U.S. Negotiator Says
The U.S. pressed major developing countries, and especially China, to commit to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in view of a global agreement to fight climate change and limit global warming, in the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen. "There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass," U.S. Chief Negotiator Todd Stern said during a press conference. "Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward (...) will be coming from developing countries," of which about 50% from China alone, Mr. Stern said.

Xinhua: China criticizes rich nations' inaction on global warming
China on Wednesday criticized the lack of action by developed nations in fulfilling their commitments on carbon emissions reduction and financial support to developing nations in coping with climate change. "You will find a huge gap if you make a comparison between their pledges and the actions they have so far taken," Yu Qingtai, China's special representative in the UN climate talks, said at a press conference during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Reuters: China urges U.S. to increase Copenhagen offer
China urged President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut carbon emissions but its top climate envoy indicated willingness on Wednesday to compromise at a U.N. conference in Copenhagen.

Xie Zhenhua said that China wanted to play a constructive role at the December 7-18 climate talks, where a successful outcome largely depends on agreement between the United States and China which together emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gases.

NPR: What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like
There are so many issues on the table at the Copenhagen U.N. climate conference that politicians from all the major players have already declared there is no hope of reaching a binding legal agreement. But progress is still possible. Participants speak of reaching a "political agreement." Exactly what that would be remains undefined, but it would represent some form of commitment to address global warming that goes beyond mere rhetoric — yet falls short of a legally binding treaty

 

Thanks, Zep!  

I'm glad U.S. is there, making its views known.  I disagree with those, like Palin (article posted earlier in this thread), who insist that we should boycott the conference. What would that do?  Smacks of, if you don't play the game the way I want you to play it, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

I did not know that U.S. and China emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Interesting to see how China tries to align itself with the developing countries.   As Edie said yesterday, a lot of this is about being good stewards of the planet.  On this issue, U.S. and China have an obligation to lead.

 
Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 12:28pm

Some more conference updates...

WSJ: All States Have Climate Role, U.S. Negotiator Says
The U.S. pressed major developing countries, and especially China, to commit to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in view of a global agreement to fight climate change and limit global warming, in the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen. "There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass," U.S. Chief Negotiator Todd Stern said during a press conference. "Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward (...) will be coming from developing countries," of which about 50% from China alone, Mr. Stern said.

Xinhua: China criticizes rich nations' inaction on global warming
China on Wednesday criticized the lack of action by developed nations in fulfilling their commitments on carbon emissions reduction and financial support to developing nations in coping with climate change. "You will find a huge gap if you make a comparison between their pledges and the actions they have so far taken," Yu Qingtai, China's special representative in the UN climate talks, said at a press conference during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Reuters: China urges U.S. to increase Copenhagen offer
China urged President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut carbon emissions but its top climate envoy indicated willingness on Wednesday to compromise at a U.N. conference in Copenhagen.

Xie Zhenhua said that China wanted to play a constructive role at the December 7-18 climate talks, where a successful outcome largely depends on agreement between the United States and China which together emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gases.

NPR: What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like
There are so many issues on the table at the Copenhagen U.N. climate conference that politicians from all the major players have already declared there is no hope of reaching a binding legal agreement. But progress is still possible. Participants speak of reaching a "political agreement." Exactly what that would be remains undefined, but it would represent some form of commitment to address global warming that goes beyond mere rhetoric — yet falls short of a legally binding treaty
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 12:01pm

 Zep wrote:
 
Nuff said.
 

 

 "Agenda-driven science."

Is that anything like Intelligent Design?
Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 9, 2009 - 11:50am


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 91, 92, 93 ... 103, 104, 105  Next